Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200922023151.387447-1-warthog618@gmail.com> <20200922023151.387447-8-warthog618@gmail.com>
 <CAHp75VdQUbDnjQEr5X5q6WdU6rD=uBNznNn5=Vy=pvdwVj_hEA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200924080921.GE17562@sol> <CAHp75VehvUTt19sBxgPTZszUmxDGZwqGAV7bgW5jVM8Mf63UJA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200926091631.GA89482@sol>
In-Reply-To: <20200926091631.GA89482@sol>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 27 Sep 2020 12:00:04 +0300
Message-ID: <CAHp75VdFG1DBSjD9DwBXvsmDCN5eN_unKiZkVBob3dSTyZzSiw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 07/20] gpiolib: cdev: support GPIO_V2_GET_LINE_IOCTL
 and GPIO_V2_LINE_GET_VALUES_IOCTL
To:     Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 12:16 PM Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 01:06:02PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

...

> Hmmm, there is more to it than I thought - gpiod_request_commit(),
> which this code eventually calls, interprets a null label (not an
> empty string) as indicating that the user has not set the label, in
> which case it will set the desc label to "?". So userspace cannot
> force the desc label to be empty.
>
> We need to keep that label as null in that case to maintain that
> behaviour.
>
> I will add a comment there though.
>
> Hmmm, having said that, does this form work for you:
>
>         if (ulr.consumer[0] != '\0') {
>                 /* label is only initialized if consumer is set */
>                 lr->label = kstrndup(ulr.consumer, sizeof(ulr.consumer) - 1, GFP_KERNEL);
>         ...
>
> It actually compiles slightly larger, I guess due to the extra parameter
> in the kstrndup() call, but may be slightly more readable??

I really don't want to delay this series, choose what you think is
better and we may amend it later.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko